Joe frazier (rip) would be the smallest opponent wlad....

Quote:

---

Philosopher you are a imbecile with your so called facts.

---

You should toss out more of your funny remarks, that's all they're good for.

Quote:

---

Look at reality, just because Foreman was more experienced does not necessary mean he was better than the original prime version.

---

IMO he was, he paced hmself better and was a much more well rounded version. Although young george probably beats him, But the more the fight went on....

Quote:

---

Young George would have battered old Foreman, in fact old George would never have fought him in the first place.

---

Did u not read my posts? I already think he would beat the older version, try not jumping in all defensive like and beginning your debate with an insult! What exactly are u a master of? Tiddlywinks? U are talking nonsense now aren't u? U r letting the facts escape u again! When did u see old george get battered by a 210lb featherfist like jimmy young? Older foreman took holyfield best shots! Also when did u see older foreman put down twice in 1 round like he was vs lyle? Oh wait u r going to tell us lyle hit harder than morrison and moorer (who was the only man ever to stop jirov!) LOL. Stick to facts and not your fantasy pasts...

Quote:

---

Old George publicly stated he would never fight Lennox because he would be beat, old George was very selective with his opponents.

---

Wel duhhh.....

Quote:

---

Do not compare old George to the prime George,

---

Who are u to tell me what to do? It is a boxing debating forum.

Quote:

---

Stop quoting his comeback fights as a weakness,

---

I quoted his earlier fights too. A fighters entire career must be taken into consideration...

Now pour yourself a drink, put on some lipstick and pull yourself together!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fightscorecollector

i understand what you are saying although you have to think of Ali's speed of punch compared to Wlad's. Total night and day. I think Frazier wouldnt have been hit with as many as Ali hit with. Vs Wlad i just think he is too wooden to keep Joe off him effectivley for 15 rounds.

---

Wlad wouldn't flurry the way Ali did but he could double and triple the jab if need be and nobody is just going to walk right through that jab of his. Wlad can also hook off the jab to keep Frazier's angles managable and the right cross when landed would rock Frazier. I don't think it would take 15 rounds the way both these guys fight. Also Joe Frazier starts fights slowly, giving Wlad a foothold and allowing him to win rounds is not a great idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

IMO he was, he paced hmself better and was a much more well rounded version. Although young george probably beats him, But the more the fight went on....

---

Funny choice of words.

Quote:

---

Funny choice of words

---

LOL. I wasn't making reference to this:

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images...jpg?1299599724

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Schultz was a terrible decision, why do u think foreman declined an immediate rematch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKZeP-DF6c

Look how dejected and beat up foreman is afterwards, he knew he lost. It was bad that Schultz was given a title shot, but it was worse that he was denied the win after outscoring and outpunching George. Some ppl think Savarese got jobbed, too.

P.s No version of foreman beats vitali (only way vitali loses is on cuts or a feak injury!) Vitali hardly ever loses a round or get's dropped, foreman was dropped by featherfist jimmy young and journeyman ron lyle twice and was also outboxed on numerous occasions by lesser men than klitschko! Does formen have a shot at knocking out vitali? 240/250lb men like Lennox, sanders and peter couldn't do so, So no!

He has a shot at younger wlad who had stamina and defense issues, but the older version beats him. Ppl like to bring up wlads 3 losses to inferior fighters, wlad has beaten far better men than the 3 men he lost to! Thing is both brewster and purrity were being totally outboxed by wlad before the stoppage, and in truth 2nd forman was struggling with lesser fighters than brewster and purrity, Foreman wins if and only if wlad gasses or makes a rookie mistake but other than that he loses! He's not outboxing WK. And the sanders that wlad, VK and rahman fought has a big chance over foreman.

---

He probably didn't take the rematch because he was old, and didn't have long left in boxing. And felt no need to have a rematch, remember he didn't rematch Alex Stewart either and i had that fight a draw. And George Foreman's face was even worse of a mess in that fight. But again they wern't robberies they were close fights, i think i had both fights a draw actually.

As for the Lou Savarese fight that was a close but clear win for George Foreman, didn't think anything was controversial about that fight although i remember it being an underrated fight action wise.

Now the Shannon Briggs fight that is what i call a robbery i had that 8-4 for George Foreman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Schultz was a terrible decision, why do u think foreman declined an immediate rematch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKZeP-DF6c

Look how dejected and beat up foreman is afterwards, he knew he lost. It was bad that Schultz was given a title shot, but it was worse that he was denied the win after outscoring and outpunching George. Some ppl think Savarese got jobbed, too.

P.s No version of foreman beats vitali (only way vitali loses is on cuts or a feak injury!) Vitali hardly ever loses a round or get's dropped, foreman was dropped by featherfist jimmy young and journeyman ron lyle twice and was also outboxed on numerous



occasions by lesser men than klitschko! Does formen have a shot at knocking out vitali? 240/250lb men like Lennox, sanders and peter couldn't do so, So no!

He has a shot at younger wlad who had stamina and defense issues, but the older version beats him. Ppl like to bring up wlads 3 losses to inferior fighters, wlad has beaten far better men than the 3 men he lost to! Thing is both brewster and purrity were being totally outboxed by wlad before the stoppage, and in truth 2nd forman was struggling with lesser fighters than brewster and purrity, Foreman wins if and only if wlad gasses or makes a rookie mistake but other than that he loses! He's not outboxing WK. And the sanders that wlad, VK and rahman fought has a big chance over foreman.

---

He probably didn't take the rematch because he was old, and didn't have long left in boxing. And felt no need to have a rematch, remember he didn't rematch Alex Stewart either and i had that fight a draw. And George Foreman's face was even worse of a mess in that fight. But again they wern't robberies they were close fights, i think i had both fights a draw actually.

As for the Lou Savarese fight that was a close but clear win for George Foreman, didn't think anything was controversial about that fight although i remember it being an underrated fight action wise.

Now the Shannon Briggs fight that is what i call a robbery i had that 8-4 for George
Foreman.

---

He wasn't rematching Shultz because he was convinced he was in the Tyson sweepstakes when Tyson came out of prison and as you said he was near the end, and knew it. Shultz had no business fighting for a title and this was the fight that brought the ibf corruption into full view and saw it's head Bob lee indicted for a bribe to have him ranked. Foreman was getting stripped of a belt either way and sure as hell going to do business with Don King and defend against Tony Tucker. The ibf shortly after stripped Delahoya for not it's unknown, unheralded Miguel Julio. Briggs was a terrible call.

Quote:

---

he was in the Tyson sweepstakes

---

He wanted tyson? Really? He was stripped for refusing to fight tucker and backed out of a rahman fight!

I think george talked a good game but was never really up for pursuing a tyson fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

he was in the Tyson sweepstakes

---

He wanted tyson? Really? He was stripped for refusing to fight tucker and backed out of a rahman fight!

I think george talked a good game but was never really up for pursuing a tyson fight.

---

The Cooney-Foreman fight was for the chance to fight Tyson and well Tyson never fought the winner of that fight as he would have gotten his ass kicked like a little child

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

he was in the Tyson sweepstakes

---

He wanted tyson? Really? He was stripped for refusing to fight tucker and backed out of a rahman fight!

I think george talked a good game but was never really up for pursuing a tyson fight.

---

The Cooney-Foreman fight was for the chance to fight Tyson and well Tyson never fought the winner of that fight as he would have gotten his ass kicked like a little child

---

OK.

What belt was it an eliminator for exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

OK.

What belt was it an eliminator for exactly?

---

It wasn't an eliminator it was a fight people were talking about because Mike Tyson was running out of opponents at that point in time (bar Holyfield who was working towards but not ready yet for Tyson so the promoters/pundits thought) as evidenced by his fight a month after the Foreman-Cooney fight with Buster Douglas. After that loss Tyson went to jail, Foreman continued his comeback and the fight never materialized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

he was in the Tyson sweepstakes

---

He wanted tyson? Really? He was stripped for refusing to fight tucker and backed out of a rahman fight!

I think george talked a good game but was never really up for pursuing a tyson fight.

---

The Cooney-Foreman fight was for the chance to fight Tyson and well Tyson never fought the winner of that fight as he would have gotten his ass kicked like a little child

---

You keep perpetuating that myth hoping it will become real but Tyson fought a far more dangerous Rudduck twice so Foreman would have been easier. Foreman was happier to take on Holyfield instead.

Quote:

---

You keep perpetuating that myth hoping it will become real but Tyson fought a far more dangerous Rudduck twice so Foreman would have been easier. Foreman was happier to take on Holyfield instead.

---

What myth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

You keep perpetuating that myth hoping it will become real but Tyson fought a far more dangerous Rudduck twice so Foreman would have been easier. Foreman was happier to take on Holyfield instead.

---

What myth?

---

Kabong myth that Foreman would have beaten Tyson during his comeback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

You keep perpetuating that myth hoping it will become real but Tyson fought a far more dangerous Rudduck twice so Foreman would have been easier. Foreman was happier to take on Holyfield instead.

---

What myth?

---

Kabong myth that Foreman would have beaten Tyson during his comeback.

---

George sure as shit would have beaten Mike Tyson into the canvas!!!! Remember Sonny Liston vs Floyd Patterson??? This would be the very same style match up and I would expect the very same results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

You keep perpetuating that myth hoping it will become real but Tyson fought a far more dangerous Rudduck twice so Foreman would have been easier. Foreman was happier to take on Holyfield instead.

---

What myth?

---

Kabong myth that Foreman would have beaten Tyson during his comeback.

---

George sure as shit would have beaten Mike Tyson into the canvas!!!! Remember Sonny Liston vs Floyd Patterson??? This would be the very same style match up and I would expect the very same results

---

Peak George you would have an case but Old George against a still decent Tyson who had not been to jail yet would batter George.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

[Peak George you would have an case but Old George against a still decent Tyson who had not been to jail yet would batter George.

---

.....so let me get this straight Old George Foreman was still good enough to win THE heavyweight title but not good enough to beat Mike Tyson who was a damned train wreck at that point in time and who never held meaningful titles after he lost to Buster Douglas?

George Foreman ALWAYS beats Tyson...prime vs prime it's George's power and strength and in his older age it's a psychological war and Tyson just couldn't handle it. And yes it would look 100% like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66dTY43XejM

George Foreman learned a lot from Sonny as you can see just from the style in which he fought. Mike Tyson had Patterson's exact same style, exact same trainer, same fast hands, more power than Patterson (but Foreman had more power than Liston too), and he'd get dominated the same way Patterson did.

Just as I complement you in one post I have to disagree with you on another. Old Foreman won a title against a china chin Moorer who was beating him silly. Old Foreman never fought like that Sonny Liston you just showed he was slower and obvious had less stamina. Tyson fought the more dangerous Rudduck and if he could take his smash he would see out a victory against old Foreman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Just as I complement you in one post I have to disagree with you on another. Old Foreman won a title against a china chin Moorer who was beating him silly. Old Foreman never fought like that Sonny Liston you just showed he was slower and obvious had less stamina. Tyson fought the more dangerous Rudduck and if he could take his smash he would see out a victory against old Foreman.

---

Oh so Moorer had a china chin eh??? He took Holyfield's punches well enough to win the title off him....and Tyson??? Not so much ;)

Your move pal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

he was in the Tyson sweepstakes

---

He wanted tyson? Really? He was stripped for refusing to fight tucker and backed out of a rahman fight!

I think george talked a good game but was never really up for pursuing a tyson fight.

---

So Foreman told King and his carefully manuvered and recycled ratings rider Tucker to piss off? Good for him. The same Tucker who had done zero since losing to Lewis and would go on to lose his next three...including being beaten up by the iron willed and future folding lawn chair Bruce Seldon for that trinket. The same wba who stripped it's middleweight champ the same year for "not asking permission" to take a stay busy non title fight and would go on to basically strip Lewis for not fighting John flipping Ruiz? Or the wba that ironically enough sees to rank the bloated %100 shot memory of the same Rahman as it's mandatory challenger for the same title...today!

Backed out of a fight with a Rahman who hadn't even made his professional debut when Foreman was pulverizing Michael Moorer ??? You sir do come up with some peanutty shite! Rahman wasn't even winning a stepping stone trinket before Foreman was
basically done for good.

Talk, mention and interest in a Foreman vs Tyson fight was common knowledge when he came back. Foreman mentioned it every time a camera was on him. $$$! King and Arum had discussions and getting those two to even sit down was a miracle. The bitterness and problem was between King and Foreman, pre and post prison and all the way back to Zaire. You sign with King you sign with the Devil. It had much more potential before both guys faded but I have no doubt Foreman was sincere as Tyson was a cash cow...and a beatable one at that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Just as I complement you in one post I have to disagree with you on another. Old Foreman won a title against a china chin Moorer who was beating him silly. Old Foreman never fought like that Sonny Liston you just showed he was slower and obvious had less stamina. Tyson fought the more dangerous Rudduck and if he could take his smash he would see out a victory against old Foreman.

---

Oh so Moorer had a china chin eh??? He took Holyfield's punches well enough to win the title off him....and Tyson??? Not so much ;)

Your move pal

---

Moorer had a weak chin, you cannot deny that, Holyfield knocked him down in the fight they had the first time and he was having a heart attack during the fight. ;D How many times did Holyfield knock Moorer down in the second fight? Bert Copper? Tua?

So are you saying Old George couldn't punch? I think Evander Holyfield would beg to differ on that topic. Holyfield said "Foreman hit me so hard it made my teeth rattle".....I haven't heard him say much about Tyson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

So are you saying Old George couldn't punch? I think Evander Holyfield would beg to differ on that topic. Holyfield said "Foreman hit me so hard it made my teeth rattle".....I haven't heard him say much about Tyson.

---

I know George can punch just Moorer was very fragile, he made Audley Harrison look hard.

Whether 100 years from now or a 1000 years. There will never be another ali..but there will be plenty of vlads. And that says it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

Whether 100 years from now or a 1000 years. There will never be another ali..but there will be plenty of vlads. And that says it all.

---

:-\ ummmm yeah no, I don't think so. There's not going to be another champion this dominant for a while. There will be other champions, there will other title holders, but I think you're missing the point that Wlad could match or even break Joe Louis' 25 consecutive successful title defenses and that my friend is pretty fucking amazing....as in it's been over 60 years since it has happened

Wlad has never been a true dominant champion. You can't be the no.1 without 100% establishing it.

Unfortunately Vitali's presence has prevented Wlad from ever being crowned THE true heavyweight champ.

Vitali might have slaughtered him, for all we know. And one loss completely changes everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Wlad has never been a true dominant champion. You can't be the no.1 without 100% establishing it.

Unfortunately Vitali's presence has prevented Wlad from ever being crowned THE true heavyweight champ.

Vitali might have slaughtered him, for all we know. And one loss completely changes everything.

---

:rolleyes:

Is that your only argument? So Wlad has a brother and has refused to fight his brother and vice versa and THAT hinders his legacy??? That's bullshit is what it is.

Vitali will retire and Wlad will run the division by himself for as long as he likes at this rate

Wladimir is avoiding Vitali.

Wlad will always be second best to Vitali. Although Vitali quit against Byrd, he gave Lewis one of his hardest fights and hasnt been embarrasingly dropped like a yoyo;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Wlad has never been a true dominant champion. You can't be the no.1 without 100% establishing it.

Unfortunately Vitali's presence has prevented Wlad from ever being crowned THE true heavyweight champ.

Vitali might have slaughtered him, for all we know. And one loss completely changes everything.

---

:rolleyes:

Is that your only argument? So Wlad has a brother and has refused to fight his brother and vice versa and THAT hinders his legacy??? That's bullshit is what it is.

Vitali will retire and Wlad will run the division by himself for as long as he likes at this rate

---

It's not an argument it's a 100% truth.

Their legacies have been harmed because they couldn't meet after clearly establishing themselves as the top two heavyweights in the world. It's not just a slight passing of champions either. They have been top dogs for YEARS!!!

You can't claim to be champion without fighting your closest rival. The worst thing that ever happened to Wlad was Vitali coming back from retirement. Wlad would have been an absolute standout champion, at this current point in time, without Vitali's presence.

However, we'll never know, in the era of Wlad and Vitali, who the TRUE heavyweight champion of the world was. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Wlad has never been a true dominant champion. You can't be the no.1 without 100% establishing it.

Unfortunately Vitali's presence has prevented Wlad from ever being crowned THE true heavyweight champ.

Vitali might have slaughtered him, for all we know. And one loss completely changes everything.

---

:rolleyes:

Is that your only argument? So Wlad has a brother and has refused to fight his brother and vice versa and THAT hinders his legacy??? That's bullshit is what it is.

Vitali will retire and Wlad will run the division by himself for as long as he likes at this rate

---

It's not an argument it's a 100% truth.

Their legacies have been harmed because they couldn't meet after clearly establishing themselves as the top two heavyweights in the world. It's not just a slight passing of champions either. They have been top dogs for YEARS!!!

You can't claim to be champion without fighting your closest rival. The worst thing that ever happened to Wlad was Vitali coming back from retirement. Wlad would have been an absolute standout champion, at this current point in time, without Vitali's presence.

However, we'll never know, in the era of Wlad and Vitali, who the TRUE heavyweight champion of the world was. Fact.

---

Very true^^.
Its a Shame there brothers.
We will never know who the top dog is of this era...until haye beats vitali..lol

Anybody that thinks vitali would walk through wlad has been enjoying too many sensimilla hit's out of there best friends giant skull bong!!

This version of vitali we see now (past couple of years!) no chance! Wlad would have stopped briggs in 6 rounds, johnson in 10 and chisora in 8. I can't see vitali walking through this version of WK, He doesn't have the 'Dog' in him anymore to really hurt this version of wlad...

Wlad has the better physical gifts. Don't base this fight on chins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Anybody that thinks vitali would walk through wlad has been enjoying too many sensimilla hit's out of there best friends giant skull bong!!

This version of vitali we see now (past couple of years!) no chance! Wlad would have stopped briggs in 6 rounds, johnson in 10 and chisora in 8. I can't see vitali walking through this version of WK, He doesn't have the 'Dog' in him anymore to really hurt this version of wlad...

Wlad has the better physical gifts. Don't base this fight on chins.

---

You're on drugs if you think Vitali beats Wlad in a mythical fight?

However,

It's perfectly rational to state that - Wlad KO's Briggs, Johnson and Chisora in mythical fights?

You need to give this another think mate. ;)

I think the disparity in footwork, foot speed and handspeed would be dramatic. Wlad would have no trouble at all finding the target.

Current WK Beat's Current Vitali.

Wlads advantages: One-shot power, he's a sharper, snappier, crisper puncher. Far more accurate, far superior timing. Better range control, reach advantage, superior jab. Quicker of hand and foot, better footwork, ties up better inside, defensively sounder in terms of his ability to block and parry shots as opposed to just moving out of range or slipping them like Vitali. Greater variety of punches, better combinations when he lets them go, better punching form.

Vitali's advantages? His chin! And the disparity is not as great as people like to believe.

Vitali has little chance of out-boxing his brother who is the superior boxer. If he brawls, people assume that his chin will hold up and Wlad's won't. If he brawls, Wlad will be landing power punches that hurt Vitali and back him up, and he's far more likely to be landing them. Wlad's range control and patient approach would see Vitali's work-rate lower aswell because he'd be setting traps that Vitali would be well aware of.

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other. Prime for prime would be interesting! I'm leaning towards Wladimir (Emmanuel Steward version!) TKO'ING him!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

"Mythical fights" is that like with unicorns and fairies????


Wladimir Klitschko is a Great heavyweight Champion.....wait for it......FACT. Just because you refuse to fight your own brother doesn't mean your legacy suffers. Also if the amount of successful title defenses Wlad has achieved was EASY then wouldn't Joe Louis' record already be broken? It has been 60 years guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

"Mythical fights" is that like with unicorns and fairies????


Wladimir Klitschko is a Great heavyweight Champion.....wait for it......FACT. Just because you refuse to fight your own brother doesn't mean your legacy suffers. Also if the amount of successful title defenses Wlad has achieved was EASY then wouldn't Joe Louis' record already be broken? It has been 60 years guys.

---

To compare Louis with Wlad is utterly ridiculous.

Louis exisited in an era of ONE champion. He was the 100% indisputable champion of the world.

Wlad has existed in an era of FOUR possible champions. Never at any point in Wlad's career has he simultaneously held all four titles. He never beat the lineal champion. The closest he's ever got to being a "legit" champion was when he beat Chagaev. The Ring magazine recognised that fight, between the no.1 and no.3, as the crowning of a NEW champion.

So Wlad has made FIVE successful defenses of the heavyweight title. That's it (although, of course, you have to completely ignore the fact that his strongest rival has been present throughout this time).

This is not a slight on Wlad. He's just very unlucky that his brother, who established himself as a top dog, was around at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

To compare Louis with Wlad is utterly ridiculous.

Louis exisited in an era of ONE champion. He was the 100% indisputable champion of the world.

Wlad has existed in an era of FOUR possible champions. Never at any point in Wlad's career has he simultaneously held all four titles. He never beat the lineal champion. The closest he's ever got to being a "legit" champion was when he beat Chagaev. The Ring magazine recognised that fight, between the no.1 and no.3, as the crowning of a NEW champion.

So Wlad has made FIVE successful defenses of the heavyweight title. That's it (although, of course, you have to completely ignore the fact that his strongest rival has been present throughout this time).

This is not a slight on Wlad. He's just very unlucky that his brother, who established himself as a top dog, was around at the same time.

---

#1 Its the same record albeit under different circumstances, so if it makes you feel any better put an asterisk beside it. It's no different than Babe Ruth hitting 60 homeruns in 160 games and Maris hitting 61 in 162 games. Its an impressive feat whatever you think about Joe Louis' record. I personally rate Joe Louis as the A#1 Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time (because it's factually correct and because he was an amazing fighter).

#2 ENOUGH about Vitali why even bring it up? They were never going to fight....EVER so it's an erroneous point to continue harping on. They may as well be in different weight classes like the Marquez brothers.

#3 Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali Klitschko have 2 seperate but impressive legacies and they are all-time great heavyweights. You could write a damn novel of top fighters in boxing that never fought each other....Floyd & Pac anyone??? Are their careers harmed by that fight not happening? IMO the longer we go without seeing it the less it affects my opinion of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

#1 Its the same record albeit under different circumstances, so if it makes you feel any better put an asterisk beside it. It's no different than Babe Ruth hitting 60 homeruns in 160 games and Maris hitting 61 in 162 games. Its an impressive feat whatever you think about Joe Louis' record. I personally rate Joe Louis as the A#1 Greatest Heavyweight Champion of All-Time (because it's factually correct and because he was an amazing fighter).

#2 ENOUGH about Vitali why even bring it up? They were never going to fight....EVER so it's an erroneous point to continue harping on. They may as well be in different weight classes like the Marquez brothers.

#3 Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali Klitschko have 2 seperate but impressive legacies and they are all-time great heavyweights. You could write a damn novel of top fighters in boxing that never fought each other....Floyd & Pac anyone??? Are their careers harmed by that fight not happening? IMO the longer we go without seeing it the less it affects my opinion of them.

---

1. It's not the same record. Four world titles means four different sets of rankings. Which clearly dilutes the worth of each individual title.

2. Why bring up the strongest rival of Wlad's era? If Vitali wasn't the WBC champion i'm pretty sure Wlad would have won it by now. Which also opens him up to a whole other set of opponents. Vitali has been a HUGE factor in Wlad's legacy.

3. Pac and Floyd BOTH established themselves as THE man in numerous divisions. They're only each others closest rival at this particular point in time. They both had already disposed of lineal champions, their independently recognised no.1 challenger and had great legacies before they become "rivals."

4. I don't deny Wlad is a "great" heavyweight. I don't deny he hasn't amassed a good legacy. I am merely stating the simple fact that - He has NEVER been THE man. And it's Vitali's fault.

You can't be the best if you don't face the best. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

Who was the best fighter of lewis era other than lewis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

Who was the best fighter of lewis era other than lewis?

---

Pele Reid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE PHILOSOPHER

Interestingly, neither fighter has beaten anyone nearly of the caliber of the other

---

Exactly.

That's why Wlad has never been THE bona fide heavyweight champion of the world.

You can imagine fantasy scenarios all day long but, the cold hard facts are, Wlad never faced THE best fighter of his era. It's unarguable basic logic.

---

Who was the best fighter of lewis era other than lewis?

---

Pele Reid?

---

Uninspired.

Come on fenster u can do better...Run with me! Who was it?